BALLARD
v.
CAIL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that while Younger abstention applies, it lacks discretion to dismiss a damages claim, and therefore the case should be stayed, not dismissed.
Plaintiff, a state pretrial detainee, sued detectives for constitutional violations during his ongoing prosecution. The detectives moved to dismiss, a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Constitutional Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff James Lee Ballard is a state pretrial detainee. He sued Detectives Jody Cail and Gregory Guzman, contending they violated his constitutional rights during his ongoing prosecution.1 Defendants Cail and Guzman moved to dismiss, arguing that this court should abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (ECF No. 55) concluding Younger applies and recommending dismissal. I have considered the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. I have also considered Ballard’s objections (ECF Nos. 59, 62, 67, 69) de novo. I conclude
The Eleventh Circuit has held Younger abstention extends to damages actions such as Ballard’s. See Doby v. Strength, 758 F. 2d 1405, 1406 (11th Cir. 1985); Watson v. Fla. Jud. Qualifications Comm’n, 618 F. App’x 487, 491 (11th Cir. 2015).
I agree with the magistrate judge that abstention is proper until Ballard’s ongoing state proceedings end. But although Younger applies,2 this court lacks discretion to dismiss because Ballard seeks only damages—a remedy unavailable in the ongoing state proceeding.
See Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 202 (1988); Watson, 618 F. App’x at 491 (citing Deakins); Tribble v. Tew, 653 F. App’x 666, 667 (11th Cir. 2016) (same). Instead, I will order a stay until Ballard’s state-criminal proceedings end. See
Tribble, 653 F. App’x at 667 (holding district court should have stayed case in light of Deakins). It is now ORDERED: 1. The report and recommendation (ECF No. 55) is approved in part.
Except to the extent it recommends dismissal rather than a stay, it is incorporated into this order. 2 Because the magistrate judge was correct on this issue, I also do not decide whether Ballard states a malicious prosecution claim. 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 37) is DENIED to the extent it requests dismissal under Younger. Its request to dismiss for failure to state a malicious prosecution claim is DEFERRED. 3. Ballard’s objections (ECF Nos. 59, 62, 67, 69) are OVERRULED. (ECF No. 69 was styled a motion to reverse the report and recommendation. I treat it as an objection. The clerk will terminate ECF No. 69.)
4. The case is STAYED.
5. Within 10 days after his state proceedings end, Ballard must file a notice with this court.
SO ORDERED on November 16, 2022. s/ Allen Winsor United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1971)
- Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193 (U.S. 1988)
- Doby v. Strength, 758 F.2d 1405 (11th Cir. 1985)